Basic income for everyone?

Now, what news on the Rialto?
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:On a practical level mincome is merely govt. downsizing or outsourcing to increase efficiency that the customer demands. Happens in private institutions and families all the time. Getting the buy in of everyone (the proper split of us and them) is tough in the public sector. Competition is needed so the customer can opt out to increase pressure on suppliers. Doesn't seem to exist in two party centralized system.
Yes I agree esp. with your last observation. The US two-party system and the vested $interest groups that control the show gives very little hope that alternative ideas can emerge and compete freely before elections and be tested after elections as an implemented policy. On the other hand.. thanks to Trumpy and Berning at least some of the major issues now have a big spotlight on them that the vested forces would have rather kept under the carpet if it were only up to them. And since the only constant in life is change... it is not possible not to be hopeful :)
Not surprisingly, the very enemy of progress in any form is a lack of competition. DC and Brussels are excellent examples.

50 state govts in the US and individual national govts in Europe seem to be a more natural, less forced order.

Humans seem to need choices, even in their deities. Yet contradictorily, they want to belong to the biggest, most popular herd. Even if that herd practices an ideology that is self-destructive, or contrary to one's best interests.

Easy to be optimistic for the thinking individual, not so much for the lemming who is 50th from the front in a line of 1,000s. ;)

https://www.google.com/search?q=gary+la ... Uc-eImM%3A
Attachments
Lemmings-Far-Side-Gary-Larsen-2.jpg
Lemmings-Far-Side-Gary-Larsen-2.jpg (43.05 KiB) Viewed 2530 times
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:Not surprisingly, the very enemy of progress in any form is a lack of competition. DC and Brussels are excellent examples.

50 state govts in the US and individual national govts in Europe seem to be a more natural, less forced order.

Humans seem to need choices, even in their deities. Yet contradictorily, they want to belong to the biggest, most popular herd. Even if that herd practices an ideology that is self-destructive, or contrary to one's best interests.

Easy to be optimistic for the thinking individual, not so much for the lemming who is 50th from the front in a line of 1,000s. ;)

https://www.google.com/search?q=gary+la ... Uc-eImM%3A
Mostly agreed. Competition is universal. Survival of the... But not only individuals compete, also groups of individuals compete with other groups. There is boxing and there is rugby etc.

Individuals compete with other individuals to make it to a team. They calculate that cooperating with others is in their better self-interest, a win-win!

A world without competition where we are a brether-/sisterhood of man and all is done in the name of Luv only... may trigger some more lemming herds to jump off the cliffs too. :P
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Not surprisingly, the very enemy of progress in any form is a lack of competition. DC and Brussels are excellent examples.

50 state govts in the US and individual national govts in Europe seem to be a more natural, less forced order.

Humans seem to need choices, even in their deities. Yet contradictorily, they want to belong to the biggest, most popular herd. Even if that herd practices an ideology that is self-destructive, or contrary to one's best interests.

Easy to be optimistic for the thinking individual, not so much for the lemming who is 50th from the front in a line of 1,000s. ;)

https://www.google.com/search?q=gary+la ... Uc-eImM%3A
Mostly agreed. Competition is universal. Survival of the... But not only individuals compete, also groups of individuals compete with other groups. There is boxing and there is rugby etc.

Individuals compete with other individuals to make it to a team. They calculate that cooperating with others is in their better self-interest, a win-win!

A world without competition where we are a brether-/sisterhood of man and all is done in the name of Luv only... may trigger some more lemming herds to jump off the cliffs too. :P
True enough. "Better" without definition is an easy sell. The terminology used in the sales pitch tells one who the mass market is considered to be.

Only when the details come out do people seem to care whether they have been chosen as members of team "us" or team "them" by the official rule makers.

Once "we" become aware of an ET threat, then all us Earthlings will get along as a Kumbayatic Planet of Humans With Common Interest (KPHWCIers)..... then when it comes time to fend off the Klingons and the Romulans, "we" can form the Galactic Federation of Planets.

Of Course, they will then claim humans are racists..... :P

Till then we are stuck with only religion, nationality, skin color, height, weight, IQ, talents, Occupation, Income, etc.

For now "we" need to make the best of the hand we have been dealt.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:True enough. "Better" without definition is an easy sell. The terminology used in the sales pitch tells one who the mass market is considered to be.

Only when the details come out do people seem to care whether they have been chosen as members of team "us" or team "them" by the official rule makers.

Once "we" become aware of an ET threat, then all us Earthlings will get along as a Kumbayatic Planet of Humans With Common Interest (KPHWCIers)..... then when it comes time to fend off the Klingons and the Romulans, "we" can form the Galactic Federation of Planets.

Of Course, they will then claim humans are racists..... :P

Till then we are stuck with only religion, nationality, skin color, height, weight, IQ, talents, Occupation, Income, etc.

For now "we" need to make the best of the hand we have been dealt.
Not sure what you are saying, really. You tend to go over the top IMO.

There exist very down to earth "us" and "them" realities that don't deserve your "quotation marks" as if they are too "dirty" to even pick up with a pair of disinfected hand gloves. For instances, employers and employees are in a very real us-them relationship (even though they share a common interest) where employing your "quotationalism" (tm) has little meaning. Why would one use "them" "there"? ;) Us-them is very real here, as it is in many more instances.

Politics may be a sort of gray area where real us-them interests intermingle with more virtual, ideological or whareverological "us-them" schisms but if you follow the money even those may be very real at the bottom of it.

The purest virtual "us-them" concoctions, i.e. that start off from a point where reality is nearly absent, is to be found in religions. One starts with the imaginary and weaves them into a reality where "us" and "them" truly deserve quotation marks because they are indeed almost too dirty to handle. :P
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
Not sure what you are saying, really. You tend to go over the top IMO.

There exist very down to earth "us" and "them" realities that don't deserve your "quotation marks" as if they are too "dirty" to even pick up with a pair of disinfected hand gloves. For instances, employers and employees are in a very real us-them relationship (even though they share a common interest) where employing your "quotationalism" (tm) has little meaning. Why would one use "them" "there"? ;) Us-them is very real here, as it is in many more instances.

Politics may be a sort of gray area where real us-them interests intermingle with more virtual, ideological or whareverological "us-them" schisms but if you follow the money even those may be very real at the bottom of it.

The purest virtual "us-them" concoctions, i.e. that start off from a point where reality is nearly absent, is to be found in religions. One starts with the imaginary and weaves them into a reality where "us" and "them" truly deserve quotation marks because they are indeed almost too dirty to handle. :P
I love the term "whareverological." I wish I had thought it up.

I think you may be trying too hard to read intent into my posts, rather than simply read. I think quotation marks around either us or them works great because the definitions are so subjective and temporary. The definitions of the broadcaster or the receiver? Today or in six months?

Fred as college student is team "us" when he gets subsidized education. Twelve months after graduation, he joins team "them" and start bitching about his taxes. Joe, the left wing union dude on the assembly line turns into a right wing capitalist when he wants to buy a better hamburger for dinner for less money. So he goes to a non-union diner.

Using your example of employers and employees, each member can choose to view the organization as team "us" and view the competing company as "them" and the unemployed dude who wants to do the job of the employee for a $1 an hour less as "them." Or they can choose to find adversity within the organization.

I still think mincome is doable (Saudi Arabia), but the definitions of us-receiver and them-payer are huge points of contention. What terms should be in the sales pitch in order to build a consensus that is not continually disputed? What tax rate is fair? How to get the paying citizens to value the unknown other citizen, as much as they do their own family or themselves?

The people of Dauphin Canada couldn't do it. Not even for a few years. They didn't use their own money, they used OPM. "Us receivers" was defined as those inside the city the city limits, and "them payers" was the outsiders.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:
I love the term "whareverological." I wish I had thought it up.

I think you may be trying too hard to read intent into my posts, rather than simply read. I think quotation marks around either us or them works great because the definitions are so subjective and temporary. The definitions of the broadcaster or the receiver? Today or in six months?
Well, to go along with that, "everything" then deserves quotation marks "all" the "time"! ;) Seriously (yes I can be "serious")
Fred as college student is team "us" when he gets subsidized education. Twelve months after graduation, he joins team "them" and start bitching about his taxes. Joe, the left wing union dude on the assembly line turns into a right wing capitalist when he wants to buy a better hamburger for dinner for less money. So he goes to a non-union diner.
Sure. What's new.
Using your example of employers and employees, each member can choose to view the organization as team "us" and view the competing company as "them"
You push the theoretical too hard. We can define, redefine till the sun sets forever. For most people there are only a few me/you and us/them identifications that matter, really. The rest is.. well.. "quote-a-babble".
and the unemployed dude who wants to do the job of the employee for a $1 an hour less as "them." Or they can choose to find adversity within the organization.
Endless possibilities...
I still think mincome is doable (Saudi Arabia)
,

I don't think is doable in SA, i.e. likely to happen happen there. The Royal Towels and their religious are too autocratic to consider it. In the West however, mincome as a reform of social security to downsize gvt and lower the costs and a better fit the flex-flux labor market (as well as the ongoing automation that netto does costs jobs) does have a window.
but the definitions of us-receiver and them-payer are huge points of contention. What terms should be in the sales pitch in order to build a consensus that is not continually disputed? What tax rate is fair? How to get the paying citizens to value the unknown other citizen, as much as they do their own family or themselves?
These general questions are nothing new and already an ongoing discussion in politics resulting in policies. Remember you paying your taxes... as discussed. :)
The people of Dauphin Canada couldn't do it. Not even for a few years. They didn't use their own money, they used OPM. "Us receivers" was defined as those inside the city the city limits, and "them payers" was the outsiders.
Not sure you summarize that experiment correctly. But there are more (recent) experiments and well see.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

John Robson wrote:Second, real hourly wages have been stagnant since Richard Nixon’s first term and median net worth has been falling for a generation, and sharply since 2008.
Mr. Perfect wrote:obama was a huge mistake.
Enough said.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Typhoon »

WSJ | Bill Gross: What to Do After the Robots Take Our Jobs
Get ready for driverless trucks, universal basic income, and less independent central banks
Right or wrong, at least he is not promoting 19th century solutions, so-called, to 21st century problems.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Typhoon wrote:WSJ | Bill Gross: What to Do After the Robots Take Our Jobs
Get ready for driverless trucks, universal basic income, and less independent central banks
Right or wrong, at least he is not promoting 19th century solutions, so-called, to 21st century problems.
sounds like the same old stuff, but with new terminology to appeal to the yutes:

"This money isn’t exactly free, of course. The price gets paid via inflation – precisely what the banks are trying to engineer right now. The price will also be paid as central banks slowly lose their independence, but that can’t be avoided, Mr. Gross says. This is essentially a Ponzi scheme, he points out, but at this point an unavoidable one. It’s also an inherently unstable structure. It won’t topple over soon, though he warns investors to remain cautious, but some day it will put the markets at greater risk."
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
Typhoon wrote:WSJ | Bill Gross: What to Do After the Robots Take Our Jobs
Get ready for driverless trucks, universal basic income, and less independent central banks
Right or wrong, at least he is not promoting 19th century solutions, so-called, to 21st century problems.
sounds like the same old stuff, but with new terminology to appeal to the yutes:

"This money isn’t exactly free, of course. The price gets paid via inflation – precisely what the banks are trying to engineer right now. The price will also be paid as central banks slowly lose their independence, but that can’t be avoided, Mr. Gross says. This is essentially a Ponzi scheme, he points out, but at this point an unavoidable one. It’s also an inherently unstable structure. It won’t topple over soon, though he warns investors to remain cautious, but some day it will put the markets at greater risk."
if you look at the econmic graphs the current batch of yutes is facing headwinds that havent been seen for such a long time its hard to even draw the wise man metaphors - certainly noone alive has seen a destruction of industries with quite the same ferocity as the current environment - maybe we need to go back to iron age destroying the bronze and the complete breakdown of all the established ways.

that led to quite a bit of conflict and destruction for the poor suckers who dont live in the long term ;P

how long is the long term? !
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
if you look at the econmic graphs the current batch of yutes is facing headwinds that havent been seen for such a long time its hard to even draw the wise man metaphors - certainly noone alive has seen a destruction of industries with quite the same ferocity as the current environment - maybe we need to go back to iron age destroying the bronze and the complete breakdown of all the established ways.

that led to quite a bit of conflict and destruction for the poor suckers who dont live in the long term ;P

how long is the long term? !
long enough for everyone to die. according to Keynes. :P

meh... not sure what it has to do with wise man metaphors, but at a certain point, it does seem there is nothing new under the sun. means of production vs. efficiency vs. number employed vs. cost of product vs. fair distribution... have been discussed for longer than I have been alive. change keeps coming and those comfortable with the status quo don't like it much. unfortunately, that is all of us at some point. if only we could get past our selfishness at continually wanting better products at lower prices.

Where's our faith in Darwin when we need it? Not the same marketing pizaz as Doomer Porn.

according to the experts of the 70's we'd all either die from starvation or hypothermia before we would even hear about Y2K. I still want the flying car promised me in the 1960's.

current fear of robots & AI remind me of past discussions. union member's fear of scabs. Americans in the seventies fear of Japan Inc.... the four tigers..... china.... immigrants.....

It will be interesting to see if Luddite-ism becomes more popular. modern day campaigns of "Buy Human!" rather than the "Buy American!' campaigns of the past, or even the more recent "buy Local!" campaigns.

What would people give up to attain their ideal/imagined past? Pay more for a Jitterbug assembled by humans than an iPhone assembled by robots?

If we can bring back Windows XP, count me in!

Will we see signs in windows "Robots need not apply!" "No AI/robots (like no GMO's) were used in the manufacture of this product!"

It would be a cool green/yuppie/luddite project to buy up the old VW Beetle tooling (still in Brazil, maybe?) remanufacture brand new 1970's models using only 1970's manufacturing technology, and then use that as one's only advertising theme.

Imagine the Ads "Sure you don't have AC or a defroster than works below 50 degrees F, but its EMF proof and Big Brother can't track you...... plus it floats and you don't need snow tires."

Then on the flip side are the other yutes who think Wall-E was a documentary of the future......
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote: current fear of robots & AI remind me of past discussions. union member's fear of scabs. Americans in the seventies fear of Japan Inc.... the four tigers..... china.... immigrants.....
50% of your population living on government funding and the rustbelt of dead and decaying post industrial america says you might be being a tiny bit flippant on those fears and their outcomes.

doc specialses in the exact opposite viewpoint, so i spose it all balances out hah.

im not saying it was avoidable, im not even saying it wont work out for the best, im just pointing out its a huge change in a society which expeted lots of labouring work for those who cant be rocket scientists and the outcomes need to be dealt with.

one of the big reasons my gubmint says it props up the housing boom and pumping the immigration is that housing construction is one of the last big employers of folks without the temperment for office work.

this trend doesnt seem to be heading in the udder direction just yet.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: current fear of robots & AI remind me of past discussions. union member's fear of scabs. Americans in the seventies fear of Japan Inc.... the four tigers..... china.... immigrants.....
50% of your population living on government funding and the rustbelt of dead and decaying post industrial america says you might be being a tiny bit flippant on those fears and their outcomes.

doc specialses in the exact opposite viewpoint, so i spose it all balances out hah.

im not saying it was avoidable, im not even saying it wont work out for the best, im just pointing out its a huge change in a society which expeted lots of labouring work for those who cant be rocket scientists and the outcomes need to be dealt with.

one of the big reasons my gubmint says it props up the housing boom and pumping the immigration is that housing construction is one of the last big employers of folks without the temperment for office work.

this trend doesnt seem to be heading in the udder direction just yet.
Agreed. I'm not saying there are not problems. Always are. Change is constant.

Darwin rules. I suspect that "we" will adapt. Not sure who "we" will include though.

TTBOMK, Saudi Arabia is the only nation who had a brilliant mincome program. At least they did when I was there in the 80's. No doubt the goal was not only compassion, but TV's and cars for all to prevent rebellion.

Idle hands are the devil's workshop. Free porn & Cheetos keep the peace.

Not sure if SA mincome survived the fall in oil prices. Lots of ideas that seem great when "we" are prosperous don't continue when time get tougher.

It will be interesting to see if Luddite-ism or protectionism resurfaces under either the name of compassion, job saving, creating tougher snowflakes, saving the Earth, etc.

I'm still ready to be obsolete and irrelevant..... ;) Whoa! I might be the new hip!
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

the main problem with the saudi version is it was highly dependant on external prices for a single commodity.

more advanced econmies with gdp's not 100% dependent on black sludge might be able to conjour up a more modest but also more stable version.

im not 100% sold on the idea anyway, i just the idea of swapping government workers for actual payments to the poor hah. crazy talk.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Mincome seems like a sensible idea. We used to subsidize and distribute excess commodities for the poor, but that required funding eligibility, warehousing and distribution systems. So, we moved to using the existing grocery warehouse and distribution systems which lowered overhead. Then we lowered eligibility determination costs by closing physical offices and replacing them with cheap cell phones and the internet.

The next step would be to eliminate eligibility determination costs completely. The average EBT benefit amount in the US is $125/person/month. I think simply giving everyone $125 a month and getting rid of the costs of eligibility might be cost effective and produce a system which increases fairness to everyone.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Mincome seems like a sensible idea. We used to subsidize and distribute excess commodities for the poor, but that required funding eligibility, warehousing and distribution systems. So, we moved to using the existing grocery warehouse and distribution systems which lowered overhead. Then we lowered eligibility determination costs by closing physical offices and replacing them with cheap cell phones and the internet.

The next step would be to eliminate eligibility determination costs completely. The average EBT benefit amount in the US is $125/person/month. I think simply giving everyone $125 a month and getting rid of the costs of eligibility might be cost effective and produce a system which increases fairness to everyone.
Certainly doable. The same argument can be made to shut down all VA facilities and simply give veterans vouchers to buy health insurance. The most efficient act the govt. can do is simply write checks rather than manage facilities.

I would assume the check recipients would have to be above 18 years of age. Assuming 50% efficiency, the amount to be collected would be $250/month per recipient. But as long as that cost is buried, and you tell the rubes Big Something is really paying the tax, no one will care all that much.
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Once again, a human problem has been identified which seems to require a super humanoid brain to solve.

I'll bail out your sorry species one more time......

Replace mincome with Wincome! :) (copyrighted! ;) )

Each month, every legal citizen over the age of 18 is required to buy $5 worth of "Big Brother Loves You!" Lottery tickets (similar to buying mandatory health care insurance). Each month, each person wins $130 by playing the Lottery.

Everyone feels like a winner, good for one's self-esteem. No one realizes the game is rigged, so they don't know it is taxes and re-distribution, good for the country. Big Brother is loved more than ever, no one ever loses an election!

Win-win-win.

When are you numbskulls going to wake up and put me in charge of everything?
Last edited by Simple Minded on Mon May 16, 2016 2:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:the main problem with the saudi version is it was highly dependant on external prices for a single commodity.

more advanced econmies with gdp's not 100% dependent on black sludge might be able to conjour up a more modest but also more stable version.

im not 100% sold on the idea anyway, i just the idea of swapping government workers for actual payments to the poor hah. crazy talk.
As long as the result is same amount of funds distributed at less cost, prices should not be affected much. If the goal is more funds distributed, obviously some prices will rise, especially locally.

How to achieve balance when discussing details is a no-no..... :?
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:moar on the finnish discussion

http://www.demoshelsinki.fi/en/2016/05/ ... matters-2/
Still good intentions void of details and facts. Transparency and numbers? No details is the only PC conversation possible.

Reference Napster's post regarding articulateness in another thread.

Just like my bridges made from clouds are better, cheaper, and greener than bridges made of steel or concrete.

What is the load carrying capacity of my cloud bridges? Yer a racist!!!!

Still I think it is doable. Just requires a culture change. How to sell is the first hurdle.

We all pay say a 30-60% VAT tax on all purchases, govt. burns 50% of the additional tax in management cost, and everyone over 18 gets $1000 a month. How to prevent price inflation is a biggie especially locally. Poor neighborhoods are suddenly less poor, what happens to the price of everything in the poor neighborhood?

Sub prime lending anyone?

Welfare state and open borders....... can't happen. Gotta draw clear lines between us and them.

Still sounds like top of the bubble thinking to me. But without numbers, who is to say?
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

im not convinced swapping middle class parasites for subsistance ones is inflationary (*)

*devil in detail on whos version of basic income we are discussing - mine doesnt have admin costs because those previously middle class parasites doing the admin have either found private employment or are themselves, now living on basic income :)
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:im not convinced swapping middle class parasites for subsistance ones is inflationary (*)

*devil in detail on whos version of basic income we are discussing - mine doesnt have admin costs because those previously middle class parasites doing the admin have either found private employment or are themselves, now living on basic income :)
Inflation or deflation will be localized. 50% VAT on everything will increase unemployment in industrial areas which is deflationary. Less appartchiks will increase unemployment in local political zones (Albany, Richmond, DC, Sacremento, etc.)

More money flowing into poor areas will be inflationary.

Kids think allowances should be higher. Parents who have to pay the extra cost disagree. Not much new under the current sun (not the colonel).
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Old and on the Street :
The Graying of America’s Homeless


.

The homeless in America are getting old.

There were 306,000 people over 50 living on the streets in 2014, the most recent data available, a 20 percent jump since 2007, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They now make up 31 percent of the nation’s homeless population.

.

.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Typhoon »

This raises the obvious question: Where are the young homeless?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Post Reply